The Libertarian blogging hack Willis Hart frequently lies about politicians he doesn't like. (He lies or simply doesn't bother to check if what he's saying is accurate, but I say what's the difference).

BTW, when I say Willis is a blogging hack, I mean he attempts "to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle" (verb used with object #4) the truth. He often REALLY mangles it.

Willis, in a 10/17/2015 blog post, harshly damages the truth when he uses the word "hack" to mean "a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack" (noun #2).

On the Fact that Political Hacks Like Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, and Elizabeth Warren Never Seem to Get All that Exorcised Over Things Such as Civil Asset Forfeiture or Eminent Domain Abuses... Not surprising in that if you look at the fine-print of their progressive mission-statement it reads, "except when the oppressor is the state". (10/17/2015 AT 9:45pm).

Willis hacks away at the truth, mangles and mutilates it with his false claims about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (as for him throwing Barney Frank into the mix, I say WTF... given the fact that Barney Frank isn't in politics any longer).

First up, the truth about Bernie Sanders and civil asset forfeiture.

Bernie Sanders: So-called civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to take property from people even before they are charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Even worse, the system works in a way that makes it very difficult and expensive for an innocent person to get his or her property back. We must end programs that actually reward officials for seizing assets without a criminal conviction or other lawful mandate. Departments and officers should not profit off of such seizures. (Bernie Sanders Official 2016 POTUS Campaign Website).

Secondly, in regards to "eminent domain abuses", when Libertarians whine about this issue what they frequently point to is the 2005 SCOTUS case Kelo v. City of New London in which the court decided that eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.

But many on the Right and Left agree that this was a bad decision.

National Review columnist and prominent political commentator Charles C.W. Cooke argues that a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's widely despised 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London might attract broad bipartisan support. Unlike most amendments proposed in recent years, its appeal would not be limited to just one side of the political spectrum.

Bernie Sanders, while in the House of Representatives, voted YEA on a bill "that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London" (Congress uses its domain to fight court's home-seizure rules).

So Bernie Sanders *is* exorcised over civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain abuses, in that he's opposed to them. There is no fine-print in his "progressive mission-statement" that reads "except when the oppressor is the state". This claim from Willis is pure BS and proof of the Hartster's disgusting hackery.

He can't be wrong about everything. Seems the North was very unnecessarily brutal in waging war with the South. But Willis is still quite wrong about the causes of the war. Wrong too with his befief that African Americans (free or not) would have sided with the Confederacy.